Age of Universe Edges Closer to Officer Bert's Prediction!

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
The Secretary of HomIntern ó wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:37:03 +0000, Painius k'lamed:
"Art Deco" wrote...
Double-A wrote:
On Jan 25, 5:25 pm, Art Deco wrote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
"Painius" wrote:

But you won't do this 'cause it's not your style! No, *your*
style
is to tear into things you think you have no power to
understand.
You are always underestimating yourself. If you stay "here"
much
longer, you'll find that we just will not let you continue
getting
away with this.

There is nothing to understand. You have nothing that makes any
quantitative predictions - you merely take a particular issue in
physics, utter some word salad and claim it "explains the issue".

Never have I seen anything even resembling science from the
saucerheads,
because I suspect they either lack the ability to make predictions
that are testable, or know that any attempt to put meat on the
bones
will expose the weakness of your position.

But please, I DO so look forward to you "not letting me get away
with
this".There is a fairly well-known psychology paper that is a
particularly
apt description of the saucerheads' condition:

J. Kruger, D. Dunning, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties
in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments," J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 77 (6) 1121-1134,
1999.

Abstract:
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in
many
social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this
overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in
these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach
erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in
the
bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly
overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their
test
scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves
to
be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to
deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish
accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of
participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence,
helped them recogize the limitations of the abilities."

Note, however, with regard to the final sentence, that the
saucerheads
have demonstrated that attempting to help them improve their skills
is
a fruitless endeavor.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Seems you're suffering from this condition yourself, Art, since you
mistakenly think you are competent enough to set yourself up as a
judge
of other people's competences on Usenet.

Your attempted diversion with a massive IKYABWAI failed.

Oh NO, Mother, AA succeeded with flying colors. What exactly *are*
your
credentials for giving out all those cute li'l awards? Do you think
that
having lots and lots of gooselings 'n sockpuppets gives you the right
to

Any evidence that I have "lots and lots" of sockpuppets, painsnuh?

Note: no evidence, the saucerhead claim fails.

And as for the other bit of lame there, if you had even the barest
thread of clue you might realize that your obsessive delusion that I am
somehow the leader of AUK is silly. But again, one tends to forget
that the elite pseudoscience lamers see the world through
saucerhead-colored glasses.

Note: no response.

be judge and jury over anybody you please?

Poor painsnuh, he desperately wants to give his kook awards back.

You appear to have a very low opinion of the process of speculation
and
its importance to the science of astronomy. So before we can kowtow
to
your esteemed low opinion, we must know just what it is in your
background
that gives you the right to be such a stark-raving pahtooteynine
demondick?

For your perusal, Teh Way of Teh K00k, in my .sig. Everyone is guilty of
one or two of these flaws, maybe even three or four; k00ks have many of
them.

painsnuh is in the final stages of terminal denial, he won't understand.

Phineas you ignorant slut...

This was stupid and tired right after the second time you lamed it.

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Glad you like it!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are 'here' and 'now'!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Teh Czar ov Awl Teh Flonkers" wrote in message
news
I'll never know another Painius like Painius on Thu, 01 Feb 2007 15:26:29
+0000 in AUK, they're so drad:
"The Demon Prince of Absurdity" wrote...
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:02:23 +0000, Painius did the cha-cha, and
screamed:

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Uh-huh. You are /so/ easy.

*ding*

(tips huge cat-in-the-hat hat)

You don't really comprehend what the "ding" is about.

Well, then we better get Mother Goose over here to 'splain it Lucy!

That's gotta be the most limp-dick lits i've ever seen!

Failure to comprehend TWOTK is also a kooksign in itself, Painful.

There's no failure here, Demon Prick of Ass.urdity, i fully comprehend
the lits as a flappin' floppin' in the breeze pee-pee.

Now you're just trying to challenge my Monkey-man for the title of
Usenet's Lamest K00k, aren't you.

I yank pm's head off and go poo poo down his... his...?

HEY WAITAMINUTE! Dat ain't no NECK!!!

And your failure to comprehend my comprehension puts you on a pedestal
that's shaped like a pee-pee. Slide down sloooooowly, Deepmon.

Well, forget it. No matter how hard you try, you're not lamer than the
PorchMonkey. You've never quite managed to spank yourself multiple times
in a single lame (in the database provided by your main owner, that is).
In a single post, perhaps, but not a single transcendently lame attempt at
insult. I suppose you've come close, though.

Is this horseshoes? or hand grenades...

You cute li'l gooselings *really* need to get a life.

Your ownership by AD is total.

So... did you *work* for and *earn* this wealth of ass.urdity? or did you
just inherit it?

_po li'l rich ho_

Oh, look, I'm coming into another co-ownership. BTW:

Demon Prick of Ass.urdity

*ding* tips sombrer0

You don't really comprehend what the "ding" is about.

T a l k i n g t o y o u r s e l f *a g a i n*, l i' l g o o s e l
i n g ?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The best things in life are 'here' and 'now'!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:
Phineas opined...
This is just unbridled idiocy. Pure, and free from reason. You truly
have no idea. Why should oscillating electric and magnetic fields
suddenly change over to some new "form of energy" simply because of
their frequency.

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Why is sonic energy different from EM energy?

SONIC energy is sound waves - pressure differentials != EM Do you truly
believe
that sound waves and EM are the same thing!!!

I think the only "ignorant slut" here is you!


Phineas you ignorant slut...

Sound waves and EM waves are certainly NOT the
same thing. That's the whole point! They are not
the same kind of energy, and yet they can both
vibrate in the same freq. ranges on the spectrum.

So there is no reason to believe that it's all EM
anywhere on the spectrum. There can be other
forms of energy that occupy the same vibrational
ranges as EM all the way from 0 hz on up to the
Planck wavelength.

As for the sub-Planck wavelengths... who knows?

All of this is kind of like the space between your
ears, Phineas. I keep telling people that there's
really something there in that space, but all they
can sense is... a void.


--
The best things in life are 'here' and 'now'!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net

From Painius, quoting the duck:

Why should oscillating electric and magnetic fields
suddenly change over to some new "form of energy" simply because of frequency?

The EM fields do not "change over to" anything. The sub-Planck
wavelength domain is _preexisant to_ and is the _carrier medium of_ EM
radiation. Why do you suppose the existance of a supporting
"superfluid" medium was a no-brainer to Maxwell? He certainly didn't
believe in a supporting "void".

The energy density of the medium surpasses nuclear on the scale that
nuclear surpasses chemical. And this is not an article of "faith". It
is demonstrated by the FACT that there is no perceptible upper limit
to the amplitude of EM radiation, transmitted at the high, fixed
velocity c.
The energy density (aka 'pressure/
density/'Temp' {PDT} value) of the medium is what determines and
_fixes_ the 'permeability/permittivity' values of the medium. No
"faith", just fact.
oc

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Sound waves and EM waves are certainly NOT the
same thing. That's the whole point! They are not
the same kind of energy, and yet they can both
vibrate in the same freq. ranges on the spectrum.


And so what about it?

So there is no reason to believe that it's all EM
anywhere on the spectrum. There can be other
forms of energy that occupy the same vibrational
ranges as EM all the way from 0 hz on up to the
Planck wavelength.

That is sheer unadulterated nonsense. Waves formed from the oscillation of E
and B fields are EM WAVES!!!


As for the sub-Planck wavelengths... who knows?

Not you


All of this is kind of like the space between your
ears, Phineas. I keep telling people that there's
really something there in that space, but all they
can sense is... a void.


Poor lames. Physics knowledge running low?



--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

In article . com,
wrote:

From Painius, quoting the duck:

Why should oscillating electric and magnetic fields
suddenly change over to some new "form of energy" simply because of
frequency?

The EM fields do not "change over to" anything. The sub-Planck
wavelength domain is _preexisant to_ and is the _carrier medium of_ EM
radiation. Why do you suppose the existance of a supporting
"superfluid" medium was a no-brainer to Maxwell? He certainly didn't
believe in a supporting "void".


Nonsense. As has been proven more times over the years then you will ever
understand, EM Waves do NOT NEED an aether to propagate over. Maxwell's
equations invariance through Lorentz (and not Galilean) show that.


The energy density of the medium surpasses nuclear on the scale that
nuclear surpasses chemical. And this is not an article of "faith". It
is demonstrated by the FACT that there is no perceptible upper limit
to the amplitude of EM radiation, transmitted at the high, fixed
velocity c.


Your knowledge of physics is utterly abysmal. You don't understand how c is set
by the permitivity and permeability of free space do you?



The energy density (aka 'pressure/
density/'Temp' {PDT} value) of the medium is what determines and
_fixes_ the 'permeability/permittivity' values of the medium. No
"faith", just fact.

So simply point me to ONE proof of the matter. You refuse to. You blather on
about "fact" yet not one of you saucerheads can give me any defining equations
that govern the behaviour of this alleged fluid or explain exactly how it works.

You're even more clueless then Painius about modern astronomy, and that is an
achievement.


--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Phineas you ignorant slut...


*DING*


Sound waves and EM waves are certainly NOT the
same thing. That's the whole point! They are not
the same kind of energy, and yet they can both
vibrate in the same freq. ranges on the spectrum.


Are you saying that a radio wave of around 18Khz is EXACTLY the same as a sound
wave of the same frequency???

Wow, you truly are clueless. Quick Painius, bust out a new lame to cover up
your ignorance...


--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Nope, sorry, you're still a sto0pid ho, Mother Goose.

The fact that you consider this issue trivial is just another
indication of your abject ignorance of basic science.


Real scientists don't need no steenkin units ;-)

You misspelled "reel". HTH.

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

In article ,
Art Deco wrote:

Nope, sorry, you're still a sto0pid ho, Mother Goose.

The fact that you consider this issue trivial is just another
indication of your abject ignorance of basic science.


Real scientists don't need no steenkin units ;-)

You misspelled "reel". HTH.



Painius has really outdone himself in the illucidity stakes recently. It seems
one comes back and argues a bit, gets kicked about and goes illucid - then
disappears to leave the other to come back for some...

Well these lot wouldn't even make the b ark...


--
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

Painius wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message...
...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message
news In article
,
"Painius" wrote:

Fell short of explanations, John. Like e.g., what
exactly is it about space-time that stretches, curves
and expands at an accelerated rate of velocity, John?

What exactly is it about spacetime that flows?

Good question, Phineas! According to Einstein,
space-time is a "relativistic field". By saying

[...]

It's okay, really, because nobody expects the void
to contain any real answers, scientific or otherwise.

Found any gravitons yet, John? any pixies?

But yet those pixies are infinitely more believable then your fairy
stories

Are they? Virtually *every* particle that has been
theorised has been "discovered", Phineas. Every
single one except the graviton. Even the elusive
neutrinos are believed to have been found. But
not that cute little grav-pixie, nope, not a trace.
And science has been looking for the graviton for
a long, long time. Is it so kooky to explore other
possibilities?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how energy, electric field
strength, magnetic field strength, and mass density are all measured
with the same units, painsnuh.

Phineas you ignorant slut...

Is this your idea of uniting the forces? To find a
way for them to all be measured using the same
units of measure?

Actually, that's not so uninteresting... hmm...

Nope, sorry, you're still a sto0pid ho, Mother Goose.

The fact that you consider this issue trivial is just another
indication of your abject ignorance of basic science.


The fact that you believe that i consider this issue
trivial is just another indication of your abject
ignorance of what issues i do and do not consider
trivial.

Um, hello, Mr. PeeWee, during one of your flowing space rants, you were
the one who tried to consider the three quantities "denser" than mass,
not I. The fact that you tried to imagine such a condition indicates
that you don't understand dimensional analysis.

Arkg hc: "Wrf' gebyyva', T'hi!"

Go goose a moose, Mother Goose.

There is no aether, instead space is filled with flowing lames.

[fanboi froup snecked]

--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert